What a question. Do you prefer zero or some when it comes to releasing toxins?
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Heins
I asked the following question of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Santa Fe conference attendees in late April: “Clean Power Plan: Isn’t it really an artificial emergency with impossible deadlines created by hastily written federal regulations for unwilling states and their utilities.” This remains a very good question.
Am I the only person who is troubled by forecasting about earth in 85 years, 2100?
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Willard, Droughts, floods, hurricanes, PM2.5 are all great BS detector inputs. You chose to shift to droughts. Perhaps you can help Mosher raise the 50 Billion so he can eliminate PM2.5 by keeping “all” the coal in the ground? Then y’all can start on PM1.0.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Vaughan Pratt
DP: <i> Useful research would be to discover why CO2 has no effect on average global temperature</i>
Since David Springer is closer to you ideologically than I am, you should find it easier to persuade him of this than me. Report back if you succeed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by verdeviewer
Compare Mooney’s propaganda with this article:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/how-breaking-a-glacier-makes-the-earth-quake/
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard
> You chose to shift to droughts.
Tell me who wrote the comment where we can find this, Cap’n:
Willard, I believe you deserve the title of King of the Minions.
“Droughts […]
Then tell me who wrote the comment where we can find this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts
Then tell me more about the BS detection business you’re running.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Willard, You mean the response to the wicked wiki link you posted?
> This claim that more CO2 will reduce crop production is an 1984 “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” sort of claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts
As for your “45 pages makes it a report not an article” I haven’t stopped laughing yet. Overselling is over selling. Ragnaar’s divide by ten is getting to be a pretty good conversion factor for climate alarmism.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Vaughan Pratt
@DS: <i> The object isn’t to get to the truth but rather win the case for your client regardless of the truth.</i>
For lawyers, certainly, but it is your assumption that everyone uses that strategy, not mine. I assume that people employ whatever strategy best suits their stated goal. The goal of scientists is to understand nature better..
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard
> I haven’t stopped laughing yet.
That show’s you’re a good sport, Cap’n.
Thanks for playing.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by jim2
Nice! I have difficulty understanding the “Royals” thing, but as long as you guys like it …
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kcom1
It would also be interesting to see how much of Russia is actually electrified. To see the dead spots and the density of electrification. I am sure there are vast empty areas. Just as it’s highly likely vast parts of the Sahara would be unlikely to have electrification demand (relative to the cost).
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by PA
Willard | June 28, 2015 at 7:14 pm |
That minimization sounds less suboptimal than what we started with, PA:
there is no real cost of carbon emissions.
In the decade of the greatest emissions increase the GHG forcing went up 0.2 W/m2 (it actually took 11 years). Emissions went from 6.77 GT of carbon in 2000 to 9.46 GT in 2011 according to CDIAC. A 40% increase in emissions caused a 0.2 W/m2 change in forcing.
That isn’t enough to cause problems. It isn’t enough for GHG forcing to outweigh the benefits of more CO2.
The post 2011 CO2 emissions increase to date has been less than 5.7%. Color me skeptical that we are headed for problems. The potential for problems and the urgency of global warming seems to be greatly exaggerated.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by omanuel
By a strange coincidence, Climategate exposed the reality frightened world and religious leaders hid from the public for 500 years:
http://junkscience.com/2015/06/28/you-are-known-by-your-allies-big-popey/comment-page-1/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
A lot of China, Mongolia, and Russia is black at night.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard
> That isn’t enough to cause problems.
How much would be enough to cause problems?
***
> It isn’t enough for GHG forcing to outweigh the benefits of more CO2.
How much GHG forcing would be enough to outweigh the benefits of more CO2?
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Actually that is mostly incorrect. Diesel is not something I am allergic to. It is an airborne irritant and health hazard for everyone. I am simply more sensitive than others and I react sooner. I agree partly on the allergies except that perfumes are carried on oils and alcohols or you wouldn’t be able to smell them those are also airborne particles and general irritants. Having allergies to certain flowers simply means I have an allergic reaction to certain scents in addition to responding to the irritant factor. So the air is being filled with irritants in addition to allergenic stuff. I see no reason for filling public washroom with irritants nor would any considerate person put on scent and then ride in a bus or elevator among other people simply because 5% of the population is allergic and/or sensitive. I would prefer people pass gas in public instead of using scent as that is transient and far less irritating.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by David L. Hagen
Leigh Thompson's testimony: <a href="http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/GreenhouseGas-ACEE-LT-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Regulation and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions</a> summarized:
<blockquote>Constitutional scholar and liberal icon Laurence Tribe testified in March before the U.S. House committee on Energy and Commerce. He asserted that “[the CPP’s] submissive role for the States confounds the political accountability that the 10th Amendment is meant to protect. The EPA’s plan will force States to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the Emperor’s garb of state choice[.]” “Such sleight of hand,” Tribe says,“offends democratic principles by avoiding political transparency and accountability.”6</blockquote>
Laurence Tribe, <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150317/103073/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-TribeL-20150317-U1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Testimony of Laurence H. Tribe, EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power Plants</a>: Legal and Cost Issues, House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy and Power, 34 (17 Mar. 2015).
<blockquote>The Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan” would command every State by the year 2016 to develop a package of EPA-approved laws requiring coal-fired power plants to shut down or reduce operations, consumers and businesses to use less electricity and pay more for it, and utilities to shift from coal to other energy sources a total overhaul of each State’s way of life. Noncomplying States would face sanctions, including the potential loss of federal highway funds, and the takeover of their energy sectors by an inflexible federal plan of uncertain scope that would inflict significant economic damage.
<b>EPA lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to adopt its plan. </b>The obscure section of the Clean Air Act that EPA invokes to support its breathtaking exercise of power in fact authorizes only regulating individual plants and, far from giving EPA the green light it claims, <b>actually forbids what it seeks to do.</b> Even if the Act could be stretched to<b> usurp state sovereignty and confiscate business investments</b> the EPA had previously encouraged and in some cases mandated, as this plan does, the<b>duty to avoid clashing with the Tenth and Fifth Amendments would prohibit such stretching.</b>
EPA possesses only the authority granted to it by Congress. It lacks “implied” or “inherent” powers. Its gambit here raises serious questions under the separation of powers, Article I, and Article III, because EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to Congress and judicial power that belongs to the federal courts. The absence of EPA legal authority in this case makes the Clean Power Plan, quite literally, a “power grab.”
EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress and the Federal Courts all at once. <b>Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.</b>
</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #185 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by PA
Well, the background concentration of mercury isn’t zero. It is about 60 PPB. So zero is an irrational target.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
RiH008, There is also an “other” issue involved with PM2.5. A study in Rotterdam indicates that 70% of the carbon in PM2.5 there is “biogenic” not fossil fuel sourced, based on C14 testing. Tire, road and break wear are even a larger source. So any “drastic” measure to reduce FF related PM2.5 is likely to be about half as effective as “projected”. Targeting PM2.5 is going to be a waste. Targeting specific elements of PM2.5 in order of most urgent will likely reveal some new demons like wood pellets, palm oils and other “sustainable” alternatives that involve combustion.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
